Thank you, a few in-line comments.
Jeremy
Phil Tetlow wrote:
>
> 1) abstract is not an abstract. An abstract should be a short summary of
> the content of the paper.
> The end of the introduction is fairly close to an abstract
>
> How about: This note outlines the benefits of applying knowledge
> representation languages common to the Semantic Web, such as RDF and OWL,
> in Systems and Software Engineering practices. It is primarily written from
> a Systems and Software Engineering (SSE) perspective.
>
Suggest deleting last sentence, otherwise OK.
> 3) I found the history section 2.1, 2.2 off-putting.
> This is largely stylistic. For example, I was happy with the
> treatment of the same history in one of the presentations at the SE
> Workshop in ISWC. I suggest taking some of the treatement from Rudi
> Studer's slides.
> My personal opinion is that I agree strongly with your position (and love
> your historical support), but the task force's consensus was that a major
> audience for this note would have no significant background in SSE
> (undergrad students for example) and would hence value a ‘gentle’
> introduction to this area. I further agree with your point relating to
> ‘doubt or distancing’, but I think that the task force should debate you
> comment further – The original text in this section did not come from me
> but I do not believe that the motivation behind this was blatant
> self-promotion for SSE’s supposedly flawless past.
>
I hope the TF can consider Rudi's slides as a different way of
presenting the same material.
> I have particular problems with the use of the word 'logical'. Typically
> metanarratives have a logic of their own which is often evil, which is
> one of the key reasons they have been falling into disrepute. (I am
> unclear as to whether I am writing a metanarrative of metanarratives)
>
> Strongly Agree: Changed to "Today we are just starting to see further steps
> in software systems' construction"
>
> 4) Another stylistic problem was the use of unattributed positions.
> e.g. "Indeed many experts now consider " - reference please. Or rephrase
> to make a statement which you wholly own, and don't step away from.
> Again "Similar to current work in Semantic Web Services" which work?
> "practitioners" who?
> "a commonly asked question" who is asking?
>
> Agree: "Indeed many experts consider" changed to "Indeed one could now
> consider"
> Agree: "Similar to current work in Semantic Web Services" changed to "The
> aim here is to make such rules unambigous"
> Mildly Disagree: Surely the use of a deliberately generalised term such as
> "practitioners" is acceptable in this context to appeal to as wider
> audience as possible. Neverthless changed to "SSE
> practitioner"...practitioners also changed to "industrial professional" in
> the Target Audience section...hope that's better?
Fine.
>
> 5) I've scribbled "speculation" beside the subbullets under mechanism in
> sectioon 3.1, I think particularly triggered by "could be viewed as".
>
> Agree: Fair comment - wording changed to be more definite (i.e. "can"
> rather than "could"), but dont think there is much debate about the
> classification "types". The names of the classifications may me a little
> different but content can only ever comprise data, function or a
> combination of both. Nevertheless if you have better suggestions for this
> section, or you would prefer it taken out all together...just let us know.
>
> 6) Again phrasing under "a collection of Semantic Webs"
> I think the position stated is defensible but the language used could be
> improved
>
> Agreed: Changed further to valued input from Jim Hendler
Yes I saw Jim's comments.
>
> 7) Notes should not promise or suggest much further work e.g "a
> potential future note form [sic] this taskforce"
>
> Agree: Removed
>
> 8) Again the "speculative" word along side the bullet points after:
> "employing such techniques:"
>
> Not sure - further comment from you required:The use of composite keys is
> proven best practice in the RDB world and everyone knows that it can be
> applied to RDF and OWL, we just do not have convetion on practice yet. Does
> lack of convention preclude mention of such practices?
>
> 9) I found the references odd - why divide into normative and
> informative, since this note has no normative content.
>
> ;0): Actually we did this following your earlier advice - sorry!
Oops, sorry.
>
> 10) The phrase "notoriously ambiguous UML" is again unattributed and
> unnecessary, except to persuade the reader by rhetoric of a position
> that may be defensible, but is not defended in this document. Either
> back up such an assertion with references and/or argument or delete it.
> It is unnecessary.
>
> Agree (I think): Here I was refering to conversations with guy's like
> Grady. Ill ask him directly if he is in print on this matter and then add a
> reference if applicable
> ====
>
> I need to review the proceedings of
> http://www.mel.nist.gov/msid/conferences/SWESE/
>
> once I have I'll try and send more comments.
> Overall, as you know, I enjoyed the workshop immensely; and both there
> and in the primer, there seems to be plenty of better grounded material
> to make a compelling case for many of the positions taken in this paper.
>
> Jeremy